The lack of stable housing is often cited by researchers as a significant barrier for current and former foster youth to continue attending school, and studies have shown that those exiting the foster care system face disproportionately higher rates of homelessness in California.
Even so, two reductions totaling millions in funds targeted toward preventing homelessness and housing instability among youth exiting the foster care system are detailed in Gov. Gavin Newsom’s proposed 2024-25 state budget. The governor’s cuts to extended foster care housing programs would help close only a sliver of the state’s projected $68 billion budget gap.
“It’s unclear to me why programs that help support the housing needs of some of our most vulnerable residents would be singled out for elimination,” said Debbie Raucher, director of education at John Burton Advocates for Youth (JBAY), a nonprofit organization that advocates for homeless and foster youth.
Among the proposed cuts is $18.8 million from the general fund that’s intended to help youth (ages 18-21) in extended foster care with supplemental funding to cover their housing costs. Those millions were approved last year to be implemented in 2025-26; the governor’s latest budget proposal, however, eliminates them before they go into effect.
There is also a proposed cut of $13.7 million from the Housing Navigation & Maintenance Program, formerly known as the Housing Navigators Program, effectively eliminating the program whose entire annual budget in the past two years was $13.7 million.
This program, often referred to as HNMP, offers supportive services to current and former foster youth ages 18-24 who receive a federal housing voucher. The vouchers are funded by the federal government, but participating states are mandated to provide supportive services for young people who are granted a voucher.
The services vary by region but could include recruiting landlords who might be open to renting to someone with no rental history, help with security deposits, answering questions the foster youth tenants might have about their lease, and more.
“It’s important because you almost can’t make use of their voucher without support. These are young people that have no rental history. They are at an age where many landlords are not excited to rent to them. They’re college age, they don’t have co-signers because they don’t have families that are supporting them, and they have no experience finding housing on the private market,” said Simone Tureck Lee, director of housing and health at JBAY. “So to expect them to just take a voucher and sort of turn it into housing is largely unrealistic.”
The proposed budget cuts seem to ignore the housing needs of this population of California’s youth and their vulnerability to homelessness, say Tureck Lee and other advocates.
The distribution of two foster youth-specific housing vouchers — the Family Unification Program and the Foster Youth to Independence Initiative — increased by 54% in the past two years, from 870 in 2021 to 1,341 as of last Oct. 1, according to a recent report by John Burton Advocates for Youth.
The increase, according to Tureck Lee, is in part due to changes in federal policies that made it easier for the housing vouchers to be distributed to youth and in part due to an increase in state funding toward supportive services — the very services now at risk of being eliminated.
“The end game here is to keep people stable in their housing,” said Tureck Lee. Without this funding, she added, the vouchers would still be available, given that they are federally funded, but the growth they’ve seen in voucher distribution will likely be curbed.
Lillee Taylor, 21, is one of the 1,341 California youth in extended foster care who received housing vouchers and found some stability. She received her voucher just under one year ago.
Today, Taylor, majoring in psychology at Cal State Fullerton and a single mom to a 4-year-old, also works full time for an Orange County organization as an outreach and engagement coordinator, providing resources for youth and adults leaving incarceration.
Only four years ago, however, she was 17 years old and sleeping in a 1999 Toyota Corolla she bought on Craigslist for about $1,000.
She was living there despite having been placed in a foster home. Taylor said she isn’t sure how the foster parent’s home was approved for fostering, given that the woman was uninterested in housing Taylor. So she made a deal with the woman: She could continue receiving the payment she’d get for housing Taylor if she at least took in Taylor’s dog.
This was the arrangement until Taylor graduated high school and found out she was pregnant. She told the foster mom that she couldn’t live in her car any longer. The woman refused to take her in, so Taylor picked up her dog.
She continued living in her car, now with her dog, while working full-time as a veterinary technician and saving money. On her 18th birthday, she applied for two apartments in Phoenix and moved there two days later. The apartments were not subsidized, but she moved there because it was what she could afford.
“There was no possible option that I could find anything in California, it was just super unrealistic, so Phoenix was a lot easier to rent in,” she said. “It was also really close to California so it was easy to come back and forth to see friends.”
Her daughter was born in Arizona and Taylor relied on funding from a federal program for foster youth to sustain them both, while attending community college remotely.
Taylor eventually made her way back to Orange County, where she was born and eventually returned after being taken from her mother and placed in foster care, two days before her 10th birthday. It was also the area she spent her teenage years — moving in and out of foster homes and group homes.
The housing voucher, which she received last year, is perhaps the most critical resource that makes it possible to now live more comfortably with her daughter.
Without the voucher, she wouldn’t be able to afford her current neighborhood in the southern part of the county — the area she wants to live in because it has good schools for her daughter and is close to her small support system of friends.
The voucher has also given her the opportunity to choose her living environment. “After living so many years in places you have no choice of being, like foster homes and group homes and just not great situations, when it comes to where we live, I’m pretty picky,” she said.
Taylor is not alone in her pursuit of a safe and stable home. Of all youth who experienced homelessness in 2022, 29% were former foster youth, says a report from Children Now, an organization that evaluates progress made on California policies and investments.
“If the foster care system is supposed to do one thing, it’s supposed to ensure that every youth in the foster care system has a roof over their head,” said Raucher of JBAY.
What would become of Taylor and others in her situation if the voucher is discontinued? Taylor said she’d figure out a way to find stable, safe housing for herself and her daughter. She is resourceful and has, for years on end, found safety for herself and her daughter — first as she navigated the foster care system and then as she fought to place a restraining order on an abusive ex-boyfriend.
And even though the voucher has not come without obstacles — Taylor has found it incredibly challenging to find new housing even with a voucher, something she’ll be doing once her current lease is up — she’s relieved she has it.
“Having the support of the voucher gives me the opportunity to be able to go do fun things with my daughter because I do have a little bit of extra money,” she said. “She actually has a pretty decent-sized savings account right now because I’ve been able to save some extra money from what I’m not paying in rent, so that would definitely not be a thing if I had to do everything completely on my own.”
It’s that support that might be reduced if the governor’s proposed budget cuts are ultimately approved later this year, said Tami Di Paolo, director of youth support services at Orangewood Foundation, which provides support services for youth who might be exiting foster care, experiencing homelessness, or at risk of being trafficked in Orange County.
“Young adults like Lillee and other youth coming out of the foster care system, they’re able to secure housing, and now they can take a moment to focus on other needs because they feel safe and secure in their home,” she said.
The elimination of state funds might sunset certain services that Orangewood provides, such as support paying for utility bills, groceries, and hotel stays in between leases, or might lead to a reduction in their staff, said Di Paolo.
If any of their programs have a gap in funding, Di Paolo said they look to fill it as soon as possible to prevent service interruptions for youth.
“But that also means that we would not be able to increase other services because we needed to fill this gap,” she added. “We know this is working for the young adults, but that funding needs to come from somewhere.”
EdSource is an independent nonprofit organization that provides analysis on key education issues facing California and the nation. LAist republishes articles from EdSource with permission.
